Heather Boswell
Superintendent of Program
Program Services office:
40 Amelia St., Orangeville, ON L9W 3T8
(519) 941-6191 ext.240
or Toll Free 1-888-535-5528
Email: heather.boswell@ugdsb.on.ca
File Code: C01
PGM: 2009-20
November 24, 2009
MEMO TO: Chair of the Board and Trustees
FROM:
Heather Boswell, Superintendent of Program
SUBJECT:
Upper Grand District School Board French Immersion Program Delivery
Report Classification:
Information
Background:
The Upper Grand District School Board approved the following motion at the June 9, 2009 Board
meeting.
“That the Program Department provide a report reviewing our Board’s current models for
FI program delivery and providing any recommendations for changes/modifications.”
The Upper Grand District School Board has both dual stream and single stream French Immersion
program delivery beginning at junior kindergarten. The following appendices are attached:
Appendix A: Upper Grand District School Board - French Immersion Elementary Enrolment
September 2009
This chart illustrates where French Immersion programs exist currently and enrolment as of
September 11, 2009.
Appendix B: Upper Grand District School Board September 2009 Enrolment - Elementary
This chart illustrates the single and dual stream French Immersion programs. English enrolment
is followed by French Immersion.
Appendix C: French Immersion Comparison Dual Stream and Single Stream
The staff reviewed the literature on dual stream and single stream French Immersion program
delivery. Appendix C outlines the benefits and drawbacks of dual stream and single stream
organizations, both of which exist in the Upper Grand District School Board.
-1-
Upper Grand District School Board
• R.J. (Bob) Borden; Chair
• Mark Bailey
• Dan Best
• Susan Moziar
• Lynn Topping
• Ralph Edwards; Vice-Chair
• Linda Busuttil
• David Gohn
• Bruce Schieck
• Jennifer Waterston
Appendix D: Upper Grand District School Board Grade 3 French Immersion EQAO Results for
Dual Stream and Single Stream
This chart shows the Grade 3 EQAO results by French Immersion school on assessments over
the past three years.
Issue:
To provide information and make any recommendations for changes in the current models of
French Immersion delivery within the Upper Grand District School Board.
Recommendations:
1. That the report entitled Upper Grand District School Board French Immersion Program
Delivery, dated November 24, 2009 be received.
Rationale:
The Program Department is not making any recommendations for changes or modifications to
current program delivery for the following reasons:
a.
In our view, effective teaching strategies and principal leadership are most important in
maintaining a strong program. This can be accomplished in either a dual stream or single
stream setting.
b.
The majority of our French Immersion programs are dual stream. This allows access to a
program without travelling an excessive distance and may save on bussing costs. Immersion
and Core French students can support one another, as can the teachers.
c.
Immersion Centres have allowed the Board to utilize school buildings when the student
population in the neighbourhood put the viability of the school in question. Students are
bussed in from other areas, keeping the site open. Parents of FI students are generally
supportive of this because of the focus on the second language and a strong sense of
community results.
Summary:
The Upper Grand District School Board has both dual stream and single stream models for French
Immersion program delivery. The Program Department supports both approaches as long as dual
track schools maintain a viable population in both tracks. The number of schools a given student
will attend in the elementary years should not exceed two.
-2-
Upper Grand District School Board
• R.J. (Bob) Borden; Chair
• Mark Bailey
• Dan Best
• Susan Moziar
• Lynn Topping
• Ralph Edwards; Vice-Chair
• Linda Busuttil
• David Gohn
• Bruce Schieck
• Jennifer Waterston
Appendix A
Upper Grand District School Board - French Immersion
Elementary Enrolment as of September 11, 2009
Brisbane PS
Edward Johnson PS
Elora PS
Erin PS
J.D. Hogarth PS
James McQueen PS
John McCrae PS
King George PS
Paisley Rd PS
Palmerston PS
Princess Elizabeth PS
Victory PS
Total
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
32.
57.
.
.
.
48.
96.
31.
57.
.
.
.
34.
95.
40.
50.
.
.
.
35.
85.
23.
48.
.
.
.
30.
81.
25.
36.
.
.
.
26.
67.
33.
34.
.
.
.
28.
63.
22.
41.
.
.
24.
.
50.
30.
22.
.
.
17.
.
57.
24.
19.
50.
46.
372.
24.
14.
38.
72.
365.
29.
18.
37.
61.
355.
22.
23.
18.
30.
275.
12.
12.
16.
48.
242.
27.
16.
13.
18.
232.
16.
8.
17.
29.
207.
22.
9.
18.
23.
198.
7
8
.
32.
23.
27.
32.
.
109.
119.
10.
.
13.
.
174.
191.
Total
FTE
Total
236.
345.
27.
64.
64.
201.
594.
228.
176.
142.
207.
327.
2611.
204.5
288.
27.
64.
64.
160.
498.5
228.
152.
125.5
163.
268.
2242.5
Appendix B
Upper Grand District School Board
SEPTEMBER 2009 ENROLMENT - ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Aberfoyle P.S.
Alma P.S.
Arthur P.S.
Brant Ave P.S.
Brisbane P.S.
Brisbane P.S. (F.I.)
Centennial Hylands E.S.
Central P.S.
Centre Peel P.S.
Credit Meadows E.S.
Drayton Heights P.S.
East Garafraxa P.S.
Edward Johnson P.S. (F.I.)
Elora P.S.
Elora P.S. (F.I.)
Eramosa P.S.
Erin P.S.
Erin P.S. (F.I.)
Fred A. Hamilton P.S.
Gateway Dr P.S.
Grand Valley & District P.S.
Hyland Heights E.S.
Island Lake P.S.
J.D. Hogarth P.S.
J.D. Hogarth P.S. (F.I.)
James McQueen P.S.
James McQueen P.S. (F.I.)
Jean Little P.S.
John Black P.S.
John McCrae P.S. (F.I.)
June Ave P.S.
Ken Danby P.S.
Kenilworth P.S.
King George P.S.
King George P.S. (F.I.)
Kortright Hills P.S.
Laurelwoods E.S.
Laurine Ave P.S.
Maryborough P.S.
Minto-Clifford P.S.
Mitchell Woods P.S.
Mono-Amaranth P.S.
Montgomery Village P.S.
Ottawa Cres P.S.
Paisley Rd P.S.
Paisley Rd P.S. (F.I.)
Palmerston P.S.
Palmerston P.S. (F.I.)
Parkinson Centennial P.S.
Ponsonby P.S.
Primrose E.S.
Princess Elizabeth P.S.
Princess Elizabeth P.S. (F.I.)
Princess Margaret P.S.
Priory Park P.S.
Rickson Ridge P.S.
Rockwood Centennial P.S.
Ross R MacKay P.S.
Salem P.S.
Sir Isaac Brock P.S.
Taylor Evans P.S.
Tytler P.S.
Victoria Cross P.S.
Victoria Terrace P.S.
Victory P.S.
Victory P.S. (F.I.)
Waverley Dr P.S.
Westwood P.S.
Willow Rd P.S.
French Immersion (F.I.)
English
Totals
JK
35
18
34
20
7
32
35
25
7
17
26
29
57
25
SK
28
14
36
18
11
31
44
22
25
24
21
41
58
26
23
20
Gr 2
38
25
39
22
32
23
53
30
23
27
28
45
48
37
13
21
22
24
21
27
21
23
21
24
23
63
47
27
18
39
19
52
49
48
20
33
27
49
57
33
21
26
31
59
43
36
19
47
15
15
93
20
68
14
18
35
26
21
95
30
75
10
12
35
21
17
85
28
56
13
7
30
28
22
80
25
59
12
46
28
13
27
38
51
20
62
33
27
26
30
15
37
21
34
26
38
23
20
38
59
11
22
102
62
16
38
22
9
72
28
42
34
370
1,768
2,138
1
1
1
3
3
46
32
16
26
45
55
18
59
35
24
29
29
18
39
19
36
35
40
33
26
25
65
20
20
103
50
13
27
22
6
61
24
52
27
357
1,769
2,126
Distribution
Full-time (effective January 2009, including Grade 1 Readiness)
Half-time
Part-time
Fee Payer
Totals
16-Oct-09
Students
Gr 3
Gr 4
42
37
27
19
31
40
16
22
19
33
25
33
48
45
16
28
38
29
29
41
23
28
41
43
36
33
34
39
Gr 1
30
22
29
18
15
40
40
28
26
32
26
33
49
31
47
20
12
26
33
45
11
44
26
35
21
15
20
26
21
37
17
48
32
24
24
47
23
16
95
41
18
24
22
9
44
24
40
23
362
1,554
1,916
Gr 1 R
50
31
16
18
36
47
21
63
29
28
21
25
23
35
16
42
21
18
39
31
38
46
17
24
108
48
17
37
23
15
30
30
40
34
273
1,841
2,114
Gr 5
37
20
39
22
27
22
70
25
36
30
27
37
41
43
Gr 6
41
20
31
20
36
30
59
22
27
56
34
38
22
39
19
30
35
38
21
32
14
38
23
54
45
46
55
23
26
54
50
37
15
26
30
20
65
30
51
11
15
28
24
20
63
31
62
15
68
26
30
60
51
42
24
19
22
31
27
60
52
31
17
9
16
19
50
29
45
19
30
31
56
29
54
18
47
33
22
25
44
53
24
66
35
38
12
25
12
54
28
40
20
16
31
28
26
63
17
23
107
52
19
42
25
6
48
34
51
27
240
1,890
2,130
47
31
17
34
37
50
24
53
30
27
27
21
16
44
23
48
57
13
39
24
30
57
18
17
102
38
16
36
25
11
18
27
64
31
231
1,943
2,174
61
35
21
15
42
51
37
57
35
31
16
19
8
46
27
56
33
17
40
42
23
59
22
23
91
50
15
40
30
23
29
28
48
32
207
2,042
2,249
57
38
21
25
58
53
26
71
27
29
22
32
9
43
25
41
42
18
36
38
43
49
28
15
85
57
12
42
30
14
23
57
54
33
197
2,051
2,248
Gr 7
42
Gr 8
48
48
52
62
71
26
44
54
25
35
66
50
23
101
99
27
93
32
115
32
43
44
82
51
72
23
29
31
46
54
129
50
53
63
46
52
77
109
70
53
111
119
56
42
64
56
41
82
49
40
47
91
22
10
48
28
13
45
46
54
54
63
41
32
128
76
39
35
150
79
66
53
44
47
94
54
131
174
2,215
2,389
81
44
127
191
2,244
2,435
Total
378
165
379
158
180
236
527
196
272
366
317
355
344
474
27
175
423
64
239
312
281
579
499
501
64
114
201
303
218
587
222
568
113
188
228
527
343
138
196
446
501
269
648
250
239
174
246
144
417
180
434
368
208
353
300
525
600
156
160
793
517
126
378
199
93
325
427
490
499
2,602
19,320
21,922
Full-time
Equivalency
346.50
149.00
344.00
139.00
171.00
204.50
487.50
172.50
256.00
345.50
293.50
320.00
286.50
448.50
27.00
157.00
402.50
64.00
219.50
280.50
260.00
521.50
451.00
463.50
64.00
95.25
160.00
282.50
200.00
493.00
197.00
496.50
101.00
188.00
228.00
480.50
319.00
125.50
169.50
410.50
453.00
253.50
595.00
220.50
208.00
150.50
223.50
126.50
385.50
159.00
398.50
346.50
165.00
325.50
278.00
494.00
547.00
139.00
141.00
694.50
465.50
109.00
347.00
177.00
84.00
267.00
401.00
449.00
470.50
2,236.00
17,658.75
19,894.75
Students
17,864
4,053
1
4
21,922
FTE
17,864.00
2,026.50
0.25
4.00
19,894.75
Appendix C
French Immersion Comparison
Dual Stream and Single Stream
There is little research that favors one program over another (i.e. single vs. dualstream) as a means of delivering French immersion.
There are many considerations as outlined in the following charts.
Dual
Stream
(Schools
offering
French and
English
programs)
Benefits
Drawbacks
• Helps all students in the school
appreciate the country’s two
languages and two cultures as
English students receive
exposure to French language
used in school beyond core
program
• Immersion students have access
to English resources in library,
especially by Grade 7 & 8 when a
larger portion of their program
is delivered in English
• Teachers of both programs
benefit from each others’
expertise
• Community involvement is
enhanced because the school
may be closer to child’s home or
be the home school
• Integration of two cultures
fosters understanding reducing
French/English cliques
• May help to keep community
schools open
• Immersion students may
speak French less outside the
classroom
• Principal must manage two
streams in one building &
maximize student exposure to
french eg. french language in
assemblies, hallways so
immersion students’ exposure
to the second language is not
limited to the classroom
• Greater likelihood that
support staff may be English
• English regular program staff
may feel threatened by the
immersion program
• Teachers, students and
parents may fear the
displacement or
disappearance of the English
program
• The English program may
seem “second best”
French Immersion Comparison
Dual Stream and Single Stream
There is little research that favors one program over another (i.e. single vs. dualstream) as a means of delivering French immersion.
There are many considerations as outlined in the following charts.
Single
Stream
(Schools
offering
French
Only)
Benefits
Drawbacks
• If available, bilingual staff principals, teacher-librarians,
secretaries - increase the
opportunity for students to use
the language outside the
classroom
• Certain of adequate numbers for
a robust program by clustering
students
• Students exposed to more
french and less peer pressure
• Specialist teachers more likely in
all subjects
• Easier to use french in all
aspects of school day:
announcements, sports, songs,
displays, contact with support
staff
• French teachers report greater
satisfaction with resources and
overall teaching situations
• Eviction of English students
for French only program
• Could result in top-heavy
Grade 7/8 settings
• May result in too much rotary
• If in a new school, community
may resent benefits of new
building being dedicated to an
optional program
• Perception that immersion is
an elitist program - lacks
development of cultural
tolerance
• Finding bilingual support staff
is difficult
• May increase time spent
travelling from home if
program limited to centres
rather than neighbourhood
programs
Problematic areas in French Immersion programs that apply to both Single and DualTrack are:
• The quality of speaking and written skills in French is less developed.
Grammatical errors persist in these areas regardless of school organization.
Listening and reading are more likely to be on par with francophone learners.
• There is a relatively high rate of student withdrawal from French Immersion
programs due to academic or behavioural challenges.
• Schools have difficulty finding qualified/fully bilingual teachers.
Reference List:
1. Doell, L. Differences in Setting. Compiled Research of the Comparison in Academic
Achievement between Dual-Track and Single-Track French Immersion Programs. French
Language Resource Centre, Grande Prairie, Alberta
Studies cited in this report include the following:
Crawford, D. (1993). Parts of a Whole: Building a Shared School Culture in Dual-Track
Immersion Schools. University of Calgary.
Kissau, S. The Relationship Between School Environment and Effectiveness in French
Immersion. University of Windsor.
2. Waterloo Region District School Board, Report to Board - December 2008
Review Update on the Delivery of French Immersion Programming.
Research cited in this report include the following:
Cummins, J. (OISE, 2000), Lapkin and Swain, (1981) .
3. Lapkin, S. Andres, C. Harley, Swain, B. and Kamin, J. Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, The Immersion Centre and the Dual-Track School: A Study of the
Relationship between School Environment and Achievement in a French Immersion
Program, Canadian Journal of Education 6:3 (1981).
Appendix D
UPPER GRAND DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Grade 3 EQAO Results
for Dual Stream and Single Stream French Immersion Schools
2006 ‐ 2007
# of Students
UGDSB
Brisbane
Edward Johnson
James McQueen
John McCrae
Paisley Road
Palmerston
Victory
Ranking of Single Track Students of 7 French Immersion Schools
Note:
FI
213
45
28
21
64
24
8
23
UGDSB
2224
82
55
33
51
41
46
Reading
FI
UGDSB
77
62
67
61
89
78
57
48
84
92
73
38
66
83
67
3rd
% of level 3 or 4
Writing
FI
UGDSB
73
63
89
78
79
73
29
30
73
83
69
50
66
70
57
4th
2007 ‐ 2008
FI
78
89
68
29
88
96
38
87
3rd
Math
UGDSB
70
80
67
39
82
63
78
# of Students
FI
239
39
46
28
62
17
10
37
UGDSB
2230
62
60
51
62
47
32
65
Reading
FI
UGDSB
77
62
77
61
74
73
57
61
84
83
64
90
53
79
72
2nd
% of level 3 or 4
Writing
FI
UGDSB
71
62
82
78
71
68
47
59
73
64
70
100
72
67
63
3rd
2008 ‐ 2009
FI
71
80
57
39
85
64
80
82
1st
Math
UGDSB
66
80
66
51
68
56
75
# of Students
FI
248
50
38
28
64
27
18
23
UGDSB
2315
82
44
55
43
34
Reading
FI
UGDSB
75
60
76
70
87
54
57
81
59
42
67
40
87
74
1st & 3rd
% of level 3 or 4
Writing
FI
UGDSB
70
67
70
71
89
43
50
91
41
27
50
49
65
59
1st & 2nd
1. The number in each category of Reading, Writing and Math represents the percentage of students achieving either level 3 or 4 on the EQAO Tests.
2. The French Immersion results for grade 6 are not broken out by the EQAO to allow these comparisons, therefore have not been included. The Grade 6 assessment is written entirely in English.
3. The shaded area indicates that there are no English stream students in grade 3 at that school.
FI
67
76
66
29
81
48
67
83
Math
UGDSB
67
72
2nd & 5th
36
33
47
74